Re: [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Robyn (and everyone)

Perhaps I can clarify... No group call at all (yet) is planned but I expect
there will be soon...

When Carlton mentioned "The MAPO call later today could be the basis for a
consensus formulation defined." he was referring to a PRE -WG planning call
between leadership of the AC's and SO's to get things rolling; So as Chuck
indicated in his reply => "I [we] hope to have more details in terms of next
steps either later this week or early next week.


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 17 August 2010 03:16, Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is there a MAPO call today for this group?  I missed the info on this if
> there is one.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:29 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote:
>
> The MAPO call later today could be the basis for a consensus formulation
> defined.
>
>  We are all agreed the status quo is noxious.  There are those of us who
> are unambiguously on the side of free speech; a string is a string is a
> string until some fool put an interpretation to it and we remain convinced
> that every fool has an unfettered right to remain foolish without burden to
> me. The issue is the compromise position.
>
> So start thinking about what a smelly but barely palatable ‘middle ground’
> posture could be.
>
> Carlton
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx<owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Evan Leibovitch
> *Sent:* Monday, August 16, 2010 10:41 AM
> *To:* soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [soac-mapo] OK, so what happens next?
>
>
>
> The GAC has made its statement. Some preliminary discussions within
> At-Large have suggested that the sky has indeed not fallen and that this the
> GAC statement is more of an opening statement than a final decision.
>
> The GAC statement calls for further discussion. Some will say that this is
> just a call to argue the details to implement what some (including myself)
> see as a draconian least-common-denominator approach to TLD strings,
> premitting only that which is not offensive to anyone. I disagree, and see
> this as at least an opportunity to engage and produce something that
> protects free speech (as we had been told in F2F meetings by many GAC
> delegates) as well as addresses fears expressed in the statement.
>
> The only thing that nobody wants is the status quo, which is what will
> remain if we ignore the opportunity.
>
> It appears to have been the consensus of the chairs of ALAC, GAC and GNSO
> that this mailing list is the appropriate forum for such engagement, yet I
> have seen nothing here since the immediate reaction to the GAC statement.
>
> What is anyone waiting for? If the GAC is serious about wanting dialogue --
> as it has indicated -- than it must be part of this conversation. Indeed,
> there must *be* a conversation.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>